Bill Atkinson's psychedelic user interface | Hacker News Reader

Bill Atkinson's psychedelic user interface

patternproject.substack.com

479 pointscainxinth308 comments

Related: Hypercard was inspired by an LSD trip which Bill explains in an interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdJKjBHCh18)

HyperCard and Timothy Leary's Mind Mirror would be a match made in heaven!

Timothy Leary's Mind Mirror (1985) (usc.edu)

https://scalar.usc.edu/works/timothy-leary-software/index

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32578683

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oabRxvjf9k

I extracted all the text and data from the Apple ][ floppy disk:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37486524

https://donhopkins.com/home/mind-mirror.txt

https://github.com/SimHacker/lloooomm/tree/main/00-Character...

Related: Hypercard '200 Points of Light' demonstration (concept from 1990): https://youtu.be/H5-T_S50Sr4

I finally located a video with a live demonstration of Chuck Farnham's HyperCard Smut Stack, from the auspicious journalistic production "Geraldo: Sex in the 90's. From Computer Porn to Fax Foxes"!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42571845

DonHopkins 6 months ago | parent | context | favorite | on: ASCII porn predates the Internet but it's still ev...

Then you would have loved the HyperCard Smut Stack, the first commercial HyperCard stack ever released! I've begged Chuck to dig around to see if he has an old copy of the floppy lying around and upload it, but so far I don't know of a copy online you can run. Its bold pioneering balance of art and slease deserves preservation, and the story behind it is hilarious.

Edit: OMG I've just found the Geraldo episode with Chuck online, auspiciously titled "Geraldo: Sex in the 90's. From Computer Porn to Fax Foxes", which shows an example of Smut Stack (demo starts at 2:00 but worth watching the whole thing just for Chuck's continuous smirk):

https://visual-icon.com/lionsgate/detail/?id=67563&t=ts

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22285675

DonHopkins on Feb 10, 2020 | parent | context | favorite | on: HyperCard: What Could Have Been (2002)

Do you have the first commercial HyperCard stack ever released: the HyperCard SmutStack? Or SmutStack II, the Carnal Knowledge Navigator, both by Chuck Farnham?

SmutStack was the first commercial HyperCard product available at rollout, released two weeks before HyperCard went public at a MacWorld Expo, cost $15, and made a lot of money (according to Chuck). SmutStack 2, the Carnal Knowledge Navigator, had every type of sexual adventure you could imagine in it, including information about gays, lesbians, transgendered, HIV, safer sex, etc. Chuck was also the marketing guy for Mac Playmate, which got him on Geraldo, and sued by Playboy.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/could-the-ios-app-be-the-21st-...

>Smut Stack. One of the first commercial stacks available at the launch of HyperCard was Smut Stack, a hilarious collection (if you were in sixth grade) of somewhat naughty images that would make joke, present a popup image, or a fart sound when the viewer clicked on them. The author was Chuck Farnham of Chuck's Weird World fame.

>How did he do it? After all, HyperCard was a major secret down at Cupertino, even at that time before the wall of silence went up around Apple.

>It seems that Farnham was walking around the San Jose flea market in the spring of 1987 and spotted a couple of used Macs for sale. He was told that they were broken. Carting them home, he got them running and discovered several early builds of HyperCard as well as its programming environment. Fooling around with the program, he was able to build the Smut Stack, which sold out at the Boston Macworld Expo, being one of the only commercial stacks available at the show.

https://archive.org/stream/MacWorld_9008_August_1990/MacWorl...

Page 69 of https://archive.org/stream/MacWorld_9008_August_1990

>Famham's Choice

>This staunch defender was none other than Chuck Farnham, whom readers of this column will remember as the self-appointed gadfly known for rooting around in Apple’s trash cans. One of Farnham ’s myriad enterprises is Digital Deviations, whose products include the infamous SmutStack, the Carnal Knowledge Navigator, and the multiple-disk set Sounds of Susan. The last comes in two versions: a $15 disk of generic sex noises and, for $10 more, a personalized version in which the talented Susan moans and groans using your name. I am not making this up.

>Farnham is frank about his participation in the Macintosh smut trade. “The problem with porno is generic,” he says, sounding for the briefest moment like Oliver Wendell Holmes. “When you do it, you have to make a commitment ... say you did it and say it’s yours. Most people would not stand up in front of God and country and say, ‘It’s mine.’ I don’t mind being called Mr. Scum Bag.”

>On the other hand, he admits cheerily, “There’s a huge market for sex stuff.” This despite the lack of true eroticism. “It’s a novelty,” says Farnham. Sort of the software equivalent of those ballpoint pens with the picture of a woman with a disappearing bikini.

https://archive.org/stream/NewComputerExpress110/NewComputer... [taken down]

Page 18 of https://archive.org/stream/NewComputerExpress110 [taken down]

>“Chuck developed the first commercial stack, the Smutstack, which was released two weeks before HyperCard went public at a MacWorld Expo. He’s embarrassed how much money a silly collection of sounds, cartoons, and scans of naked women brought in. His later version, the Carnal Knowledge Navigator, was also a hit.

Gems of computing history like this are what keep me on HN.

Thanks, Don.

Thanks as always for the backlinks Don!

This demo is a lot like Gelernter's Lifestreams.

https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/freeman/lifestreams.html

I am on the fence with these topics because I have years of fear drilled into me. These topics are a taboo and I have rarely ever tried anything at all. The experiences did not ruin me, they made me more curious about my brain in a positive way. But the social taboo lingers.

What surprises me the most is that we have accepted sugar, alcohol, cigarettes and a ton of mass manufactured food which are harming us. I am struggling with high blood glucose for 12 years. Yet, the substance which I can grow in my* own backyard and may actually not be as harmful is just brainwashed out of my limits.

edits: you to me

Is there that much of a social taboo? Maybe it's just the people I hang out with and work with, but most people are open to psychedelic use and a lot have at least tried some.

Some people’s conception of “normal people” is people on the bus or train.

Some people’s conception of “normal people” is people at a church ice cream social.

Different perspectives, I think.

Having grown up around the world and going to a few international schools I came to realise that "normal" is just what the people around you do (well "in public" is probably a good effective limit).

Yes, it’s your bubble. There are American states still charging people over marijuana. Having grown up Christian I personally know people in their 30s who view psychedelic and heroin users similarly. Those people would have the opposite view of you.

Years back, my friend’s parents asked me to stage an intervention for him after they found out he regularly took LSD. He was 19 at the time.

I live in a Republican state where marijuana is illegal

Farm bill and delta-8 really flipped that whole table though

Yeah, but our legislature banned that too

Texas? :(

North Dakota

Growing up my friend’s dad was a conservative christian and a frequent caller into conservative talk radio shows. There was a state referendum to legalize marijuana, so I asked what he thought. “Of course it should be legal. It says right there in Genesis—God said: I give you every herb bearing seed upon the Earth. What could be more clear-cut than that?”

hmm so.. "I give you every herb bearing seed upon the Earth" is followed by "to eat/stuff into nose"?

with this stupidity, maybe you should try eating list of 20 deadly plants and see how it goes?

"ownership" means "edible/nose-able"... maybe you should try eating your car?

Been a while since I've read Genesis but I don't recall God putting any terms and conditions on it

Tells you to eat every planet, creates plants that are fatally poisonous to humans.

That God fella sure is strange.

Nah he just created all the plants/fruits/etc. and then gave them to Adam and Eve without an instruction manual. Never told them to eat anything in particular. I think it was still a nice gesture.

All of the Bible is T&C’s. God’s goal was to make it longer than Apple’s but he failed. (Ironically Apple was the one fruit Adam and Eve weren’t supposed to eat.)

> hmm so.. "I give you every herb bearing seed upon the Earth" is followed by "to eat/stuff into nose"?

It's not always the best use, but that's definitely allowed. It's one of the main uses of herbs.

> with this stupidity, maybe you should try eating list of 20 deadly plants and see how it goes?

If you're eating an amount that doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?

And the reason to possibly intervene would be someone stockpiling dangerous amounts. Not for enjoying plants wrong.

> maybe you should try eating your car?

It would be ridiculous to make that illegal, wouldn't it?

The words are written in the first chapter of the first book.

Clearly God did not mean “use” as “in turn into rope and strangle other people” (violating other commandments) but nowhere does God say herbs can’t be used for medicine or wine can’t be used for its intoxicating effects, (within some reasonable degree of moderation.)

Eh, I’m pretty open-minded to this stuff, but I would also want to stage an intervention if my 19-year-old was regularly taking LSD.

Well, to be pendantic, you can't "regularly" (depending on your definition) consume LSD or any psychedelic.

The 5HT2A tolerance is acute such that you need exponential dosing on consecutive days to achieve equivalent effects.

Some psychedelics like NBOMe are such strong agonists the tolerance duration is 1-2 weeks.

For "standard" psychedelics it's closer to 3-4 days.

Even at the height of my psychedelic-head phase I was using twice a week, and not by choice.

Twice a week for a drug that lasts ~12 hours is definitely “regularly”

I also dosed twice a week for a few months in my early 20s

My friend's "Christian" parents both eat Oxycontin like candy but think anything THC related is evil and kicked one of their sons out of the house at 15 years old because they found out he ate a THC gummy. When confronted they said their drug use is moral because they have prescriptions but weed is illegal and therefore satanic. I wish I was there to point out kicking their teenage son out on the streets was also illegal.

This mindset hard to even wrap my mind around. Total nonsense.

As a similar "Boy Scout" of sorts, the fear is/was real. I didn’t experiment with so much as nicotine or alcohol until I’d tried “stuff” with the supervision of an experienced "sitter"; I ended up having some of the best times of my life in the safety and context of home and friendships. Combined with my own life experiences with drug abuse and addictions, I was able to build a healthy relationship with those substances that didn't result in dependency or abuse.

In the time since, my views have changed dramatically on these substances, and I'd like to try more of them. However, my personal moral compass prevents me from using substances outside of a legally permissible setting, at least at present - and that's something I'm fine with.

Ultimately, the taboo side of things is something the individual has to grapple with on their own. I can only commiserate with your frustrations, not help overcome them unfortunately. My only other advice would be to use any substance only to amplify good vibes, never to cope with bad ones.

If all you do is chase a lost feeling, you're missing out on what's in front of you now.

> I ended up having some of the best times of my life in the safety and context of home and friendships.

> However, my personal moral compass prevents me from using substances outside of a legally permissible setting, at least at present - and that's something I'm fine with.

What on Earth do laws have to do with morals?

Laws encode a kind of social reasoning (the balancing of risk, ethics, societal impacts, etc) and choosing to follow the law in most situations can be a moral stance (a matter of principle).

To an extent, but you have to be careful with that. A common counter-argument is what happened when the Nazis allowed you to report your neighbours for treasonous talk. Lawful, but evil.

There's a whole section of moral philosophy dedicated to whether it's morally right to subsequently go after the people who reported their neighbours. They knew they were sentencing their victims to imprisonment or death, but did so 'lawfully'. Ex post facto laws are an interesting moral conundrum.

Also laws sometimes don't actually reflect society as the process gets hijacked by companies, the billionaires controlling the media or vocal minorities (usually religious vocal minorities).

It was legal to own humans. Don't conflate laws and morality, they're completely different.

Laws in theory encode the morality of the people. The people who believed it was moral to own humans encoded their morality into their legal system.

Indeed, in the most general sense (and probably more so in democracies) laws represent the codification of what society as a whole deems acceptable and what should happen when someone breaches that code.

Of the people in power, not the people. Most certainly the people who were enslaved didn't believe it was moral or ok. Similarly for women's rights, LGBTQ+, etc etc. So again, laws and morality are different things and should be treated as such.

Assuming a government that reflects the people like democracy, which is I assume the context of this discussion. And to be clear they are different, but they are very closely related. And the relationship is that law follows and encodes the people's morality. Usually by majority depending on the form of government.

If many people feel like the laws do not represent their morality, that's generally a problem, and will result in either change in the laws, or change in government altogether. They are quite intrinsically linked.

Democracy is not where a government reflects the views of the people. Otherwise the democracies of the world would not have taxes or ubiquitous surveillance or perpetual war. Nobody anywhere wants these things.

I would disagree with that; I want taxes because I get something out of taxes. Taxes are me paying the government for certain services they provide me, like I'm hiring a contractor.

As for surveillance/war, although they have been supported by large chunks of the population in the past, I would say democracy aims to reflect the views of the majority. But it's also not magic, it's a fixed system -- a complicated system, but just a system. You vote for the person/party that best reflects your views. It seems quite a bit more likely to be a reflection of the people than other forms of government where the people tend to have less of a say, but not necessarily of course.

Isn't the distinction based on whether the substance directly cause a wage gap and/or significant life expectancy loss? Someone on meth all the time can literally fatigue-free until there is no brain matter left, but someone on coffee or beer can not.

It is often argued that some of generally illegal substances like marijuana is only toxic to comparable extents as legal substances, but there are observations that it seem to trigger some types of megalomaniac schizophrenia, so the fence probably has reasons to be there, I think.

> Isn't the distinction based on whether the substance directly cause a wage gap and/or significant life expectancy loss?

No. I feel QUITE certain that the distinction is based on whether or not the substance has a history of a few generations of widespread use among western Europeans ("white people").

> His open-source approach democratized psychedelic exploration, shifting power away from costly retreats and elite gatekeepers toward broader accessibility.

No surprise that, in keeping with the hacker spirit, Bill wanted to democratize information that is otherwise accessible only to "high" priests.

If you have ever had the experience you will want to share with the world and give everyone the opportunity to experience it.

Is this different from regular DMT?

Yes. Regular DMT is N,N-DMT, Atkinson's Jaguar is 5-MeO-DMT. They have been referred to as "the power and the glory" respectively. 5-MeO-DMT is regarded as one of the most powerful and profound psychedelics, even when compared to N,N-DMT.

On DMT, you meet elves. On 5-MeO-DMT you hear every voice in the universe at once. Quite a step up, but both last like 15 minutes, max.

*If inhaled

There are other routes of administration

Off-topic, but I have to...

(From the photo caption) "Bill ... with his iphone prototype"

Nope. That's a Sony Magic Link, built by Bill (and others, myself included) during his time at General Magic. I feel General Magic is another one of Bill's endeavors that isn't widely understood or appreciated.

There was a great documentary on Magic Leap! https://www.generalmagicthemovie.com

That is a great documentary, but it's about General Magic, not Magic Leap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Leap

Here's the real story behind "Magic Creep":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28838332

Not to be confused with General Magic, which wasn't a money grubbing fraud from day one, which didn't put on the most ridiculous obnoxious unenlightening cocaine addled TedX talk in the history of the universe, which didn't post fraudulent obviously impossibly fake demos to youtube falsely claiming "Just another day in the office at Magic Leap", which didn't have a toxic nepotistic bro culture that excluded and belittled women, that didn't settle a huge lawsuit for sex discrimination against the one woman they hired to fix the "pink/blue problem" but then rebuffed and ignored, that didn't burn through billions of investment dollars producing nothing of value, which didn't blatantly rip off many people's original ideas in their unoriginal invalid fraudulent patent applications, which didn't publish an astounding but physically impossible video of a whale leaping out the gym floor and splashing down while hundreds of children not wearing AR headsets were somehow magically able to perceive it and clap and cheer and say "WOOOAAAHH!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8J5BWL8oJY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbpqwUUfMAQ

https://x.com/fernandojsg/status/1017411969169555457

Magic Leap gave magic a bad name (and was the biggest disgrace of the entire AR industry, even spectacularly worse than a certain Google Glasshole publishing a nude selfie of himself in the shower), while General Magic truly was the good kind of magic.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21725347

Oh my gosh, Don, you are giving me nightmares.

But what do you mean about the whale? I know they hypnotized the kids with some Magic, but the whale really did Leap out of the gym floor. That's where they got the company name! I saw it with my own eyes, in that YouTube video.

And don't expect me to believe that Rony Abovitz is not a real astronaut, and those were not real apes, and that was not a real space fudge monolith. I can taste right now, in my virtual mind!

About the shower glass guy... I knew him when he was a camera salesman at LZ Premiums in San Jose. I used to go there when I lived nearby, just to eye the merchandise and compare prices.

Eventually I bought something there - a huge Manfrotto tripod with a fluid head. I can still see the smile on Robert's face when he brought it out: "this guy finally bought something!"

Do you mean the same guy who perfected the high art of plugging his new AR/VR company at the end of his bombastic woman-blaming non-apology apology that his lawyer warned him not to post because all his colleagues jumped ship from his previous AR/VR company after his sexual abuse scandal sold you a huge Manfrotto tripod with a fluid head at LZ Premiums in San Jose, the one by Coyote Creek and the salt evaporator flat? Oh, do dish to me all about your huge Manfrotto! What has it seen? Tell me more! Tell me more! How's the fluid head treating you after all these years?

PS: Hello fellow Jaunter! Was it big and strong enough to support a Jaunt VR camera? Did you manage to nick one before they shut down? ;)

Don't hold back. Tell people how you really feel :)

Few seem to have put it so succinctly. Although your text recovers completely after being fully compressed to "from day one" ;)

Magic Leap gave Nova a bad name and Ft. Lauderdale a worse name but visitors should know better than to be sold their own dream.

Exactly the thing I was advising yachtsmen against when I was a teenager.

Back in the Everglades there never were that many legitimate sources of income so different cultures had long developed different ways to survive in that type of climate :\

Small-town resort coup on SV that one.

Yep. I can be seen briefly in one scene, listening intently in the background while Marc Porat waxes poetic.

This is my favourite documentary on tech! If you know more please let me know

Hi there. I will correct the iPhone prototype reference. Thanks for the heads up. - Axle / www.patternproject.ca

Who are you sir? I am a big fan of the general magicians

My name is Jay. I guess I was one of the "lesser" magicians. I worked on the Telescript side, doing infrastructure for the Telescript engine. But I got to interact with both Bill and Andy, and Phil and Tony, who I followed to further ventures. My experience at General Magic was certainly eye opening and super educational.

OMG. I was a fan of Telescript (and Obliq) at the time. I still believe that Java and the hype surrounding it contributed to the demise of mobile agents, although I'm sure that reality was more complex than that. Kudos for having such a cool job!

I was an archmage level magician and wrote the kernel graphics in assembly, Jay was a fine level 7 mage though

I was googling for my friend Josh Siegel who used to work at General Magic, and found this cool org chart!

http://www.datarover.com/SEKRIT/general-magic-org-chart-1994...

Josh Siegel worked in Magic Cap Core Technology with Bill Atkinson and Andy Hertzfeld (both "on loan"). At Sun he rewrote the PostScript interpreter in X11/NeWS from James Gosling's original messy design, and we worked on an X11 window manager written in PostScript. And at Los Alamos National Labs he wrote MMPORG simulations of World War III for the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a beautiful interactive NeWS front-end. (Sun was lucky to steal him away from LANL to work on NeWS instead of WWIII.)

https://donhopkins.com/home/archive/NeWS/owm.ps.txt

https://www.donhopkins.com/home/catalog/unix-haters/x-window...

Don Woods worked in Communicating Applications. He and Will Crowther created Colossal Cave Adventure, and we worked on TNT (The NeWS Toolkit) together. His workstation was named "colossal" and when you logged in, its /etc/motd said "Welcome to Adventure!! Would you like instructions?" to the peril of anyone who typed "yes" to the csh prompt. Don wrote the "Spider" card game in PostScript for NeWS, after having previously implemented it at SAIL (Stanford AI Lab) and for XDE (at Xerox PARC).

https://donhopkins.com/home/archive/news-tape/fun/spider/spi...

http://www.icynic.com/~don/

After having worked on NeWS (the network extensible PostScript window system) and written a lot of PostScript code at Sun, Telescript was obviously the right approach. Today the same approach is called "AJAX".

I wonder what "SEKRET" means? ;)

http://www.datarover.com/SEKRIT

Must have something to do with Magic Cap for Windows '95, which may be the killer app of e-mail...

http://www.datarover.com/

I worked for a time with a dude who was absolutely over the moon with his magic link. He got it in a way that I haven’t seen elsewhere.

Yes, he carried it everywhere. Yes, he used it during his job interview. Yes, it helped.

I used that exact same image for ma Atkinson Dithering Algo Learning Page https://atkinson.franzai.com/

Ok, where is this psychedelic community found?

I must sample their handles for videogame character names.

> Ok, where is this psychedelic community found?

Bit like asking where all the beer drinkers are! People who are into psychedelics come from all walks of life and we're everywhere :) Start talking about fringe stuff with people and eventually you'll stumble upon others.

I mean, it's not the same is it, because I can tell you where I can at least find beer drinkers … down the pub, at the bar.

If your bubble has people in it who have access to psychedelics, then great. If one's people doesn't have that, "just talk to people" is profoundly unhelpful. That's a very odd and specific conversation to bring up within some circles.

You want to find psychedelic users?

Go hang out on TripSit IRC. Go to music shows that draw that sort of crowd, like Phish and Co or EDM shows.

Check out any of the psychedelics subreddits.

Some cities have public psychedelics meetups. This was huge in the Denver/Boulder area of Colorado.

There are lots of places if you try looking a little.

See, that's helpful. Those are directions in which to be pointed. A bit America-centric but better than nothing. Thank you.

In Europe I always found connections at art show afterparties. Go to an exhibition opening and talk to everyone. It's very likely you'll get more than a few invitations.

Obviously certain exhibitions are more likely to have connections to this crowd. Favor those shows.

There are some decent communities in Discord, for both research oriented but also hobby oriented communities of psychedelics.

I can’t imagine discussing use and possession of Schedule 1 substances on a non-e2ee, logged-in-cleartext-forever platform.

You’re opening yourself up to blackmail by hundreds of different parties.

It is blatantly irresponsible to host such communities on Discord. Possession and use are federal felonies.

Well, don't join any of those discords lest your imagination be disappointed I suppose.

Most of the world is not so paranoid. Particularly psychedelic users who don't see the substances as a problem.

It’s not paranoia to point out that the War On Drugs exists in the USA and that the US has imprisoned four million people resulting from same.

Also, paranoia has a definition - can we please stop colloquially using it to mean “anxiety”? Paranoia means delusions.

1: I'm not in the USA

2: people don't really care that much

3: It's so easy to protect your identity

4: you can talk about things without incriminating yourself

3 is untrue. Discord blocks or requires tons more verification steps for most VPNs and blocks VoIP numbers.

I have been trying to use Discord anonymously for a long time. Antispam and anti-logging are high priorities of theirs, and they invest significant resources into ensuring you can’t easily make disposable accounts.

Not only is it not “so easy”, it’s not easy at all - it’s extremely difficult and becoming moreso all of the time.

Burning man and other festivals are a good resource

Bill disliked the expensive retreat hurdle.

Visit your local Hobby Lobby and ask around.

Farmer's Markets too

The article mentions Erowid

We need to push to make this stuff legal. I wouldn't go so far as to say lets sell it OTC vape pens at gas stations but a middle ground where you can go to a doctor to have this treatment performed.

I personally have never taken DMT though from everything I've read and heard on podcasts it's not something to be taken lightly. I think having a sort of "DMT Clinic" that you can go to would be the best middle ground of allowing the public access to these substances while also ensuring that there is a trained professional there to guide you through the process.

Saying "trained professional" in this context feels wired because this stuff has been underground for so long but I think it's starting to bubble up into the mainstream enough that we need to start bringing all that "into the light". Lets have training programs that teach people how to administer this stuff properly, how to deal with the negative side effects, etc.

One of the things that while I find understandable is ridiculous is the fact that Bill had to use a pseudonym in the community. I feel like if were at the point where you have C-suite types at Apple taking this stuff, it's time to think about making it available to the broader public.

Fwiw, "DMT" usually refers to nn-DMT, which is a lot different than 5-MeO-DMT (or bufo).

Agree, but the proponents of "Big Reality" really really really fight against its disruption.

Could you explain what you mean by that? Who are the proponents of “big reality”? How do they fight against its disruption?

It's a joke. People often have conspiracy theories about Big Pharma trying to prevent access to novel drugs that could disrupt their cash cows. The parent was jokingly talking about "Big Reality" as an imaginary group of people who hate to see "reality" disrupted by psychedelic experiences.

I took it as being a joke in the way "the matrix" was "a movie"

When someone has a profound psychedelic experience that shows them the arbitrary nature of many social constructs, or reveals possibilities for consciousness that mainstream science doesn't acknowledge... that's genuinely disruptive to systems built on those constructs.

The resistance is real, systematic, and rational (from the perspective of maintaining current power arrangements). Not a joke.

I'm curious whether you think that resistance is genuinely adversarial or more based on ignorance and institutional inertia.

For example, someone might have insights about the interconnectedness of all life and wants to transition to regenerative agriculture or communal land use, but face zoning laws that enforce individual property ownership. Or someone might experience ego dissolution and wants to create more egalitarian workplace structures, but runs into rigid corporate hierarchies.

Moloch devours breakthrough potential not through conspiracy but through everyone rationally optimizing for their individual/local situation while collectively producing suboptimal outcomes.

Individual insight doesn't map to institutional action. Systems can't integrate experiences they can't measure or systematize.

I do think that there are some truths to government desire for narrative management, too. It is unwise to be a hugger in a knife fight, and you don't want the populace to get high, see God, and deteriorate national security.

All in all though, it all boils down to life being complicated. The resistance isn't adversarial - it's structural. Which makes it both less intentionally evil and harder to overcome.

As RAW wrote in Cosmic Trigger: "Why does the gnosis always get busted?"

Psychedelics challenge the post-Enlightenment project of "rational" adulthood. Western civilization has a deep myth: the myth of necessary order - a yoking of rationality, order, and progress together into what forms the basis for modernity. Psychedelics cannot have intrinsic value outside of rationality, so, they must either be accepted on the basis of rationality and order or face rejection. We express this using the rational basis of improved mental health. The contradiction of course is obvious; psychedelics provide us with profoundly irrational experiences that don't obviously fit into our cultural value system.

The point is that western civilization values rationality, order, and progress in a self-justifying way. The values that our culture provides to us form a feedback cycle of myth and virtue. Every argument that assumes this basis, reinforces its truth.

"Order is obviously preferable to chaos", is one of many subjective perspectives. Why should it hold more truth than "Plurality of perspectives are obviously preferable to the fragility of one perspective for the sake of objectivity"? The apparatuses of the state[1] all rely on the same cultural myth and promote it in a way that crowds out all possible alternatives. Thus the myth of necessary order has become synonymous with reality.

Like all deeply rooted cultural myths, this is something that's going to appear obviously true which coincidentally serves as a way of shielding it from honest critique. If there's one thing that I've learned, it's that questioning foundational myths feels like a cultural violation. René Girard’s theory holds; when a community is anxious or unstable, it lashes out most viciously at people who somehow threaten its central, but unspoken, truths or anxieties. The greater the received response that a cultural axiom obviously true; the more certain I am that it reflects a core cultural myth than any semblance of reality.

1. See Louis Althusser, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, 1970.

The sheer existence of established and (partially) self-reinforcing sets of cultural standards doesn't strike me as a good basis to explore the fundamental complement of it all, or to describe it altogether as something assuredly misleading and "bad". This should be especially apparent if you've ever tried creating something that is self-justifying (it's usually a hard, valuable, and sought after effort).

Put differently, while an idea being established and self-justifying doesn't necessarily mean it's exclusive in these traits and should be bolted in, sure, an idea being fringe also doesn't necessarily mean it's unjustly fringe at all, or that it's being unfairly discriminated against. To claim so without evidence is little more than conspiratorial thinking and self-victimization.

It further sounds really quite self-serving to paint e.g. me as some misguided sheep part of some malicious cabal for this. It's a little more than just a variation on the all too common ill faith ways of argumentation; mixing in the semantic specifics of psychedelic experiences, name dropping people, movements, and quotes, and deferring to a "specific" culture's particularities serves at most as a distraction from this.

I'm not sure where you got "malicious cabal" from. Cultural values are the water in which fish swim. They look normal, obvious, trivially true, or just the way things "are". No one is secretly directing cultural truths while believing they are lies. Cultural truths are self-perpetuating ie: socially reproduced.

It's actually quite the opposite. True-believers overwhelmingly disseminate cultural myths. It's the police officer who believes they can positively affect the enforcement of order, educators who base values in the rational order of the mind. It's journalists and pundits who frame news as a tension between order (good, stable) and chaos (bad, dangerous). Where deviance is newsworthy primarily as a threat to order. See news cycles on crime, protests, economic instability, all in terms of order must be "restored."

Look at the modern workplace, for instance, obsessed with order, predictability, and process (think: KPIs, best practices, Six Sigma). And corporate culture manuals and onboarding training reinforcing norms of punctuality, control, and rational planning.

It's present in engineers, scientists, architects, IT managers - professions often celebrated as the apex of rational, orderly progress and as solutions to messy[chaotic] problems. Even here, it's easy to gain karma dunking on the liberal arts, all because science is assumed more value because it more closely aligns with necessary order.

None of these roles form a secret cabal. Still, they enforce and perpetuate the cultural value system whose results are judged on the basis of order.

No one is saying that chaos is good or order is bad. It’s that the binary itself is a function of our cultural mythmaking. When psychedelics make that myth visible, the reaction isn't to consider the critique, but to defend the myth as "reality."

> No one is saying that chaos is good or order is bad. It’s that the binary itself is a function of our cultural mythmaking.

Respectfully, this is nonsense. Ask anyone who lived in Libya under Gaddafi and then in the years since, or who lived under any other despotic regime and compare it to the chaos that ensued when the despot is removed.

Civilization’s association with order is not random (or a function of “cultural myth making”); chaos _sucks_.

All myths contain a seed of truth. I can accept that living in Libya sucks while also accepting that our culture mythologizes order. I'm not sure how to see the world in such black and white terms - that acknowledging one invalidates the other.

But your original commentary paints the world's entire cultural backdrop as myth driven. There was no representation of this subtlety you now acknowledge must be addressed.

I'm sensing a certain uneasiness with the disorder of simultaneously truths. If anything, what you bring is a good example for the value of order manifest in rationality.

It's not a hypocrisy. Both are true. If that doesn't make sense, then remember curiosity is the cure to confusion.

Despite the smugness of this comment, it does not strike me that anyone replying to you has seemed confused.

> I'm not sure where you got "malicious cabal" from.

You didn't literally write that of course. Instead, you said these:

- "the proponents of "Big Reality" really really really fight against its disruption"

- "the post-Enlightenment project of "rational" adulthood"

- "Western civilization has a deep myth"

- "[list of values] must either be accepted (...) or face rejection"

- "western civilization values (...) [list of values] in a self-justifying way"

- etc.

All of them painting "Big Reality" as a group that:

- exists

- is just following myths

- unjustly represses the exploration of alternatives

- is western for some reason?

I hope we can agree that this is not a positive or even a neutral characterization, and that it suggests coordination. Hence, malicious cabal.

> It's present in engineers

I mean yeah, hi. Every time I'm able to work with something tangible, something measurable, it's always an intrinsically better experience, both on a personal level as well as socially. And every time I run into the opposite, the end result is confusion and misery. To paint this as just cultural doesn't feel even remotely right. Especially since I really don't see culture having come first, or since there are neurodivergent people who have a particular fascination with exactly these concepts (counting, hard logic, etc), suggesting the existence of biological biases and drivers towards these.

> Even here, it's easy to gain karma dunking on the liberal arts, all because science is assumed more value

Art is incredibly technical, actually, especially the better stuff. And when you engage that technical side, you get incredible richness in return, much more levers you can push on with much more intentionality. These wouldn't be recognized things if people didn't try to see a "method to the madness" and instead just kept on going by vibes.

I cannot know what threads you've been visiting that gave you this impression, and I'm sure that there are people here who do what you describe. But as far as my anecdotal experience goes, I cannot confirm having experienced this (people taking cheapshots at liberal arts here) by the way.

> When psychedelics make that myth visible

But you don't need psychedelics to appreciate that the vast majority of the things we experience and reason about have an excessive serving of manmade components. Even something trivial as chairs or names are just artificial constructs. What this requires is a philosophically intrigued mind, not necessarily a drug-addled one. If your idea is more that "okay, but these are more tangible and readily apparent while on drugs", sure, maybe that's true. That's really not the position you've been portraying though - but that this is some exclusive perspective, that only arises when you let your mind magically throw everything else away temporarily via chemical means.

> the reaction isn't to consider the critique, but to defend the myth as "reality."

Doesn't help if you set up the rhetorical framework that way... Mind you, every belief is like this. It's not just those inherited from culture.

There are a lot of interesting thoughts here -- many of which I tend to agree with. But I don't see how this answers my questions, unfortunately -- unless you mean to say that the answers are something like 1) "almost everyone" and 2) "virtually everything they do."

That’s an amazing sentence…

For those who don't remember what it was like when LSD was still legal, this is an accurate synopsis of what could be observed as it quickly was prohibited to the max degree and categorized along with truly more toxic dangerous drugs like opiates. When things like opiates had been recognized for their potentially devastating effects for thousands of years, while psychedelics were still experimental substances.

Realistically an entire new agency (DEA) was chartered to enforce the new regulations, and the greatest threats were those thought to disrupt an "ordained" vision of reality that was not to include the kind of experimentation which made clinical evaluation possible.

Rapidly, before the most thorough experiments could be conducted which would have more accurately informed the established pharma regulation process.

Rather it was superstition that was included in the new regulations, and the enforcement agency was mustered to fight to preserve more superstition than should ever be allowed.

This really really stands the test of time, and if kelsey did not personally observe this phenomenon, it's even more amazing than it appears on the surface.

I'm only 40 years old, so no. I came of age in the midst of the DARE era. I just read a lot of philosophy and sociology[1] and synthesize them. It's always strange that HN seems to slightly favor philosophy, but tends to see sociology highly unfavorably.

It's not difficult to draw a line between social reproduction and drug policy; what's difficult is to convince people that it exists.

1. Specifically social ontology, various constructivist texts, and frame analysis.

"I think having a sort of "DMT Clinic" that you can go to would be the best middle ground "

Well, Ayahuasca (with DMT as the active ingredient) retreats seem more and more common and are for some reasons tolerated more and more in europe. Technically it is illegal, but I can still book them online.

But I won't, as I don't trust the competence of the average new age "shaman".

I dislike the idea of potential life threatening toxicity, the constant vomiting, the feeling like shit for days.

Ayahuasca trips seem to be like edging with poison. But maybe the documentary I saw was biased.

"But maybe the documentary I saw was biased."

Seems like it.

I did it one time and there was no vomitting and feeling great the day after.

But that maybe was, because the plant that was used was apparently not so strong. So yes, it is from natural plants, that can have very different concentrations. I suppose this is what the documentary means with life threatening poisening? Getting a plant that had a unusual high concentration?

But I never heard of those horror stories from people who do it regulary. (Vomitting is quite normal, though) Otherwise I have limited knowledge in that area, but I do know with mushrooms for example, you can use different ones of the same species to mix them to average out concentration differences. I assume the same can be done with Ayuahasca. But like I said, I would not recommend the commercial retreats anyway.

(I did it when I was invited into a ceremony in a remote place by people who were not frauds)

With pharmahuasca or ayahuasca analogues maybe. With a normal/traditional brew it's essentially impossible to overdose (think like 3-4 liters of the stuff). Analogues like syrian rue are a lot easier to overdose though, it's a pretty small amount of material needed.

Also the vast majority of people are done purging within a few hours...not "days"

(Source: work at retreat center and have drank hundreds of times)

You seem to know, what you are doing. Is the retreat center where you work located in europe?

No (and sorry I don't know enough european centers to suggest any. My perspective is that the substance you drink is only one part of it, the curandero and their experience is the other, and I can't imagine there would be a lot of traditional experience over there)

"and I can't imagine there would be a lot of traditional experience over there"

No, not much. But plenty of new age shamans, who are spiritual, because they flew into the Amazonas once.

"My perspective is that the substance you drink is only one part of it"

Definitely. When I did it with brasilian Santo Deime folks, I was part of the whole ceremony, including cooking it traditionally for a long, long time and preparing mentally for it. Something like this I would like to do again at some point.

The state of Oregon is experimenting along these lines:

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/preventionwellness/pages/psilo...

"A client may only access psilocybin at a licensed service center during an administration session in the presence of a trained, licensed facilitator."

Oregon had gone with a broader decriminalization as of February 1, 2021, but rolled that back in 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_110

"wired" -> weird

immediately jogged my memory for one of my favorite stupid Simpsons moments:

"why, there's no magazine called 'Weird' is there?" [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjZ0GBL9ArA

Last year I underwent treatments for my treatment-resistant major depression using Ketamine. It was a clinical setting, where you'd get wired up to blood pressure, pulse-ox, and other monitors while you were monitored by an RN via video camera. This was IV Ketamine, so not the inhalants that are available now. According to the clinic, the inhalants (which they also offered) are also generally less effective than IV, and the IV was safer in my case because I have other medical conditions where being able to "shut it off" was a good thing - you can turn an IV off, but once you inhale, you're on your own.

So... this clinic was not entirely unlike what you're proposing w/ DMT.

FWIW, the results were incredible. I was effectively "cured." But unfortunately my insurance changed, and it became no longer covered, and I couldn't afford the $2000 every six weeks for the treatment anymore. And it's not super convenient to take two hours off from work to go to the trip-sitter's to get the treatments.

I hope that they figure out what it is in psychadelics that make them effective at treating stuff like depression and PTSD and make it more accessible because it seems like there's so much potential there.

(Also: fuck Elon Musk for making Ketamine a punchline)

I like the potential healing value of Ketamine.

But that doesn't make replacing every instance of ketamine with "horse tranquilizer" any less funny.

> being able to "shut it off" was a good thing - you can turn an IV off, but once you inhale, you're on your own

How does it work? Is the half-life of it shorter when administered IV?

Only a little. Not enough to serve as an escape hatch. It depends on the infusion rate, of course, but you’re talking a difference of maybe 15-20 minutes.

I had a Ketamine infusion done at a clinic in Miami.

It was $600 (discounted) for the first infusion.

You go through a pre-evaluation with the doctor, where they determine a dosage for you based on prior experience and bodyweight.

My clinic also offered to co-administer IV benzos to prevent panic attacks or negative experiences, which was a HUGE plus for me.

During the experience you're given a button, which you can press to call them and have the drip turned off or turned down.

If it wasn't so expensive or covered by my insurance, I would've certainly repeated it.

Highly recommend.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing! I’ve read that you can get your hands on a solution for Ketamine injections (or, if you have pure Ketamine, just prepare one yourself). Most go for intra-muscular injections instead (~70% bioavailability compared to IV, still great compared to ~10% when snorted). The reason they give is, when administered IV it wears off way too quickly – I guess drip solves this one!

This is, of course, way more risky and pretty much illegal I guess, but it should probably be cheaper?

It'll be significantly cheaper, and assuming you purchase the Ketamine from a reputable source/vendor and use a test kit on it, the risk is comparatively "minimal".

Not necessarily "condoning" the behavior, so much as sharing harm-minimization info here:

For safe/sterile injection, you need three things, all cheaply + easily available on the internet.

1) Bacteriostatic water - https://www.amazon.com/bacteriostatic-water/s?k=bacteriostat...

2) Sealed, sterile vials for preparation of the solution - https://www.amazon.com/Sterile-Vial/s?k=Sterile+Vial

3) Insulin syringes. 29g 0.5" work well. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=29g+1cc+1%2F2+inch+insulin+syring...

See my comment in this thread about IM administration of 4-AcO-DMT for more info:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44535690

Ketamine is dumb. Nothing like a psychedelic drug such as LSD.

Fun fact: the cost of the ketamine in that $2000 treatment is about $1. Even factoring in trained staff to monitor, you’re up to a few hundred bucks for the hour. It’s mostly just the failings of the US medical establishment, and, of course, arbitrarily constrained supply that results in gouging.

Just go buy $100 in street ketamine (still marked up 100x, fwiw, also because laws) from someone reputable, test it for fentanyl, and blow lines of it. Same deal, $1900 less cost. Breaking some dumb rules is far preferable to living with untreated depression.

You're much safer and cheaper buying Ketamine from the darknet via a reputable vendor.

You get to decide whether you want racemic or S-Ketamine, and your money is held in escrow until you've got the product and release the funds to the vendor.

Is that not precisely what I recommended?

N,N-DMT is very intense and not to be taken lightly - but you could say the same with LSD, psilocybin, etc. Personally, I am much more wary of large doses of LSD/psilocybin than DMT, in part to the substantially longer duration of the former. Ego death and the complete dissolution of reality makes it harder to have a bad trip

I'd generally agree with you, but:

  > substantially longer duration of the former

When time stops until the end of this universe gives way to the beginning of this universe and the snake eats it's tail, "longer" doesn't hold much meaning...

True, I should have qualified "actual" duration, not perceived duration!

user name checks out

A wise legalization might help with access & harm-reduction... but legalizations are sometimes bungled.

In the SF bay area – & plenty of other regions around the world – the criminal enforcement against hallucinogens is, de facto, a very low priority as long as you're not flagrantly endangering or inconveniencing others.

5-Meo is kind of nasty because it has a non-linear pharmacology.

the normal dose is 5-10mg, but LD50 in sheep is about 100mg, it might be as low as 30mg in humans.

It absolutely should not be legal, at least to anyone. Perhaps require training in dealing with drugs with a low therapeutic index

> it might be as low as 30mg in humans.

That seems quite unlikely given that there are many 30mg dose trip reports, going as far back as TiHKAL.

LD50 in sheep:

1–5 mg/kg IV

1–2 mg/kg SC

85 mg/kg O

In mice:

75–115 mg/kg IP

48 mg/kg IV

113 mg/kg SC

278 mg/kg O

They were administering over 30mg to humans in trials. (Metzner (2013); Shulgin and Shulgin (1997); Ott (2001); Davis et al. (2018); Uthaug et al. (2020a))

Sheep are susceptible to toxicity from certain tryptamine alkaloids because of their physiology.

These alkaloids, especially those that are N,N-dimethylated, can trigger neurological symptoms in sheep, such as convulsions, spasticity, and gait issues. The alkaloids are suspected to affect the brain and spinal cord by interacting with serotonin receptors.

5-MeO-DMT is an N,N-dimethylated compound. Its full chemical name is 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine. That indicates the presence of two methyl groups attached to the nitrogen atom of the tryptamine backbone.

Stay safe, everyone!

The Human-Equivalent Dose for IV administration is roughly ~300mg for a 100kg human.

Tell me you never studied basic med chem or pharmacology without telling me...

You can't use animal models for dose, you have to convert to hED (Human-Equivalent Dosage). You can estimate this generally with allometric scaling:

https://drughunter.com/practical-pk-calculators

Also, animal physiology varies.

Beta-adrenergic agonists like clenbuterol make mice wildly muscular, which unfortunately is not the case in humans, for example.

Accessibility is great, but you really should have a guide supporting you for your first journey. This is very different than being (say) introduced to a computer for the first time. Having an experienced friend/practitioner/therapist there can help you go deeper, keep you safe, and support you in integrating your experience. This is probably the most potent psychedelic on the planet.

I hope research with psilocybin, DMT, and other psychedelics continue and that some of these possible discoveries pan out.

Example that just came across my news feed: "psilocin, a byproduct of consuming psilocybin, the active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms, extended the cellular lifespan of human skin and lung cells by more than 50%."

https://neurosciencenews.com/psilocybin-longevity-aging-2942...

I’ve taken a lot of psychedelic drugs. I wouldn’t recommend them. I don’t think they are at all helpful nor necessary for a fulfilling and open life. They may have some uses for addiction treatment in clinical settings. I definitely don’t think it’s someone that everyone has to experience. Sober life is best

There is no sober, society is drinking. Better acid then alcohol

Most people I know don't drink.

Is the world's most powerful psychedelic the personal computer, or is it 5-MeO-DMT (Jaguar)? Not having tried the latter, and therefore speaking from a position of ignorance, I'm inclined toward the former. I think Timothy Leary agreed with me.

Having experience with a lot of psychedelics it's completely ridiculous to put the personal computer in that category.

Timothy Leary might've drawn a parallel on the psychological impact of computers (I have no idea on the exact quote or it's context), which is enormous, but computers are just not psychedelic.

Could you help me out, would this video be considered psychedelic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_dLx_J2oVs I made it with a personal computer.

Computers are one of the most psychedelic technologies ever created. It literally expands the mind.

I have not used 5-meo, but for n,n DMT the vape is without a doubt the most convenient method.

I've done it a few times. Unlike DMT, you don't have to vaporize it.

It's active intranasally and well as buccally/sublingually.

Effects-wise, it feels roughly identical to DMT but with a longer duration.

I found it significantly less visual. As in, about as immersive, but somewhat lacking visual depth/detail to things. But everyone's different anyway.

To me it feels like a completely different drug compared to nnDMT. 5-meo-DMT also feels very different depending on the roa from my experience (vaped vs IM)

Expand on roa effect difference?

It’s a little difficult to describe as 5-meo-DMT is not a visual type of trip. In fact I get almost no visuals from it even at relatively high doses.

I would describe 5-meo as a trip that gives you an immediate understanding of how life and the universe “works” at a very fundamental level. Your perception changes from analytical type thinking to all of a sudden just knowing how everything fits together and how you can control reality around you. A bit like pulling the curtain back and seeing the source code of realty but then also intuitively knowing how to manipulate and rewrite it and seeing the effects of that in real time.

I wish I could explain it better.

In terms of ROA between vaping and IM get the same type of knowing but from a different perspective. Injected feels like your personal programming code gets rewritten and you have a reality shift to having administrator privileges while vaped feels like the person that wrote the code is a co-pilot in your head explaining how the code is written and how it executes to present as reality to you.

There’s definitely a lot of overlap between each roa type though.

What I describe above is also my experience after dozens of trips with 5-Meo. The first few were definitely more confusing and at times overwhelming as the perspective shift can be severe. Once you get experienced though it’s a fun way to cruise around in “reality”

Ah, a fellow "I've IM'ed tryptamines" person.

I made this mistake exactly once, with 4-AcO-DMT.

That was the last time I ever did such a thing.

Can you expand on this? I just so happen to have evrything to try this, but never even considered it.

I dissolved 20mg of 4-AcO-DMT in 1mL of bacteriostatic water in a sealed, sterile vial and then injected it intramuscularly into my glute.

(If you do this, make sure you inject the upper-outer quadrant. The closer to your midline you go, the further the risk of you hitting a nerve.)

If you're very experienced and want to do it for novelty's sake, go for it; I'd warn you, but anyone considering this should know what they're likely in for.

Nearly immediately after injection, I became so filled with vibrating, psychedelic energy I thought my soul was going to be ripped from my body. I had to clutch the edge of the sink, trying not to vomit while staring at the exploding fractals swirling in the metallic reflection.

It only lasts about 2 hours. I'd not particularly rate the experience as "good".

Thank you for this, astral traveler

Np, good luck on your journeys!

That’s a good protocol for safely doing IM as you describe it. Though that seems like a big IM dose! :D I’m not too familiar with 4-aco-dmt so couldn’t say.

For 5-meo I generally do 6-8mg prepared as above. That seems subjectively close to 15-20mg vaped (powder in a glass pipe not in a “juice” vape).

But either of those are definitely a commitment to the ride, lol. I do like the mixed jaguar vape cartridges for micro dosing though (like Bill prepares them in the article). Very easy to control your dosage that way with the ability to start slow and add more with additional puffs.

For reference, 20-25mg of oral 4-Aco-DMT feels identical to 3.5g of standard potency cubensis.

But 4-AcO has much less body load and no nausea from the organic matter that'd usually be sitting in your stomach, I think it's better than "organic" shrooms.

5-MeO is a lot stronger mg-for-mg, you're quite brave at those doses IMO!

Truth be told, I was more of a fan of the lighter headspace phenethylamines, like 2C-B or even 25i/25b-NBOMe.

As someone who has done a lot of both (as well as drank ayahuasca several hundred times), they are completely different animals especially at the full-dose levels.

Several hundred times? There's a story there…

Maybe, maybe not. It's just life when you work at a center :)

Somehow I missed that he died just last month. The modern computing world is indebted to him I think. I was lucky enough to meet him in person once. This inspires me to this day:

https://www.folklore.org/Busy_Being_Born.html

Someone please slip some of this stuff into various world 'leader' politicians' drinks. 'Dissolution of ego' seems like something that could be extremely beneficial for the world in some cases.

I have never used hallucinogens but know people who have and one of them suffers from Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder which causes visual snow or noise in his vision. It is a bit like visual tinnitus and he says it greatly reduces his quality of life. Wikipedia has a animation of what it looks like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep...

For the technological context and result:

https://www.folklore.org/Joining_Apple_Computer.html

Still very sad that HyperCard got sidelined and that even its successor, Livecode abandoned the idea of being available to everyone --- though it looks as if folks are still working that:

https://openxtalk.org/

This is off-topic, we are discussing drugs here.

It's not off-topic, it's the intersection of two things that Bill Atkinson was extremely passionate about.

Hypercard was inspired by an LSD trip.

Perhaps the gp's comment was written and posted whilst being smashed, and that's just one of the effects.

which the link in question references:

>Inspired by a mind-expanding LSD journey in 1985, I designed the HyperCard authoring system that enabled non-programmers to make their own interactive media.

Not a big fan of the ongoing productisation of transcendental, possibly brain-scrambling experiences. Keeping them somewhat less accessible tends to filter out people who don't do their homework to understand the substance and who consider it just another novel experience to try on a whim, which increases the risk of negative outcomes.

That has been various governments approach to drugs for literally decades and it got us nowhere.

The problem isnt that this still is casually available. Drugs have been casually available since forever.

The problem is that pushing drug usage to the fringes makes it less safe for people who haven’t done their homework. Ironically the exact opposite of that you claimed.

You're right. I'm all for across-the-board decriminalisation btw. But I don't really know where a responsible balance would be for psychedelic availability, my intuition is we shouldn't be aiming at OTC disposable DMT vapes etc.

Perhaps administration of the drug from a professional? Make the treatment an affordable and legal option.

The difficulty here is professional skill entails money, money entails risk management, risk management entails legalities.

The only way in the US is to have a powerful lobby that can fight to ensure broad waivers stand up in court, like the NRA: you can buy a gun and literally shoot yourself in the foot.

But if transaction, money, service, profession are all removed, then under a co-op / non profit this might work. Of course, those structures are also vulnerable to well-funded legal opponents.

Some European countries do provide a framework for this but it's more from a public health perspective and to eliminate the raison-d'être of criminal drug organizations.

That sounds awful. I'll stick to my home and nature

I think with psychedelics it's fine. The problems you're talking about are with addictive stimulants.

With psychedelics the risk profile is very different. Firstly, people can do harmful things during the trip. Second, a more vague, difficult to measure and predict concern around long term psychological effects to some people.

Right, my pronoun is dangling here. "It" was meant to refer to the status quo of making them inaccessible without a lot of difficulty and breaking the law.

Harmful things during the trip are extremely rare. Haven't seen among thousands! of trips I've witnessed.

I haven't personally seen it either, though sounds like I'm less experienced than you.

I've heard of a few though. In 2019 a bay area software engineer who by all accounts was a good guy, maybe somebody here knows him, attacked some people on a trip. He also stole some vehicles, drove over some people, and was shot by law enforcement trying to stop him. He was paralyzed.

That's an extreme oddball case or freak accident.

I think one needs to take in such a story and not sensationalize it or overstate danger, or get yourself scared, but also, you do need to know that things can go out of control for some people.

> do their homework to understand the substance

Is that actually the common thing to do amongst recreational psychadelics users (i.e. is there research backing this up)?

And how do these folks "understand the substance(s)"? We (humanity) know very little about how the brain works comparatively as far as I'm aware, and psychadelics research is further relatively lacking due to regulatory and funding constraints. Most resources I hear of just seem to be compilations of anecdata, frequently muddled with subjective remarks.

I can only speak for my own circle that I know about where test kits are the norm. Anecdata isn't ideal but it does seem to be valuable as long as the reader considers both positive and negative reports equally and understands the risks rather than just yoloing. I still consider Erowid a great harm reduction resource, TripSit wiki is also fantastic, and I very much support the approach taken by the Subjective Effect Index website.

I see, fair enough. I'd be just hesitant to say "xy keeps yz from doing zx" without data, cause it sounds like a claim (or even a fact) rather than an opinion/anecdote, and it's pretty hard to pick up on this difference.

We were able to clarify it and we're both being decent sports about the topic, but you can imagine how well this might go over in less careful and open minded situations. Or even desperate ones.

It is quite common, but not always. I, for example, even was doing GC/MS to check substance and purity. My friends listened to me about how to approach these things. So, quite common, ancdotically.

I suppose this is a dangerous counterargument to make, especially as I'm not a substance user at all myself, but... what's wrong with wanting to seek out novel experiences? I'd much rather folks who wish to do this be able to do so safely, with good sources of information about those risks and with a support network that is allowed to talk about it. I feel like the taboo nature of substances in general causes folks with this interest to hide it from their peers, exactly the people who would otherwise be first in line to spot problems and offer assistance. Shouldn't it be okay to talk about it?

They are totally OK as long as healthcare is not socialized.

There's angles to socialization. If a person with brain issues gets free doctor visits and a medicine, that is at cost to society.

If they are safe to be around and are able to hold a job or have children, then there's societal benefits gained. One could consider the treatment costs as investments.

If that person was untreated and they did something unpleasant or bad in public, or ended up in prison, that also has a cost to society though it might be more complex to quantify.

You are assuming treatment benefits, but the comment was about "recreational" use and its consequences.

Does that line of reasoning extend to things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes? Not trying to undermine your point, just genuinely curious.

> things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes?

motorcycles...? in... my eyes?

What wizardry is this? First "computers in my brain", now this. I'll have the singularity that you're smoking pls :)

EDIT: was at first genuinely confused, and then tickled by my own misunderstanding

'in your view' would probably have been a better choice of words.

I don't see why not. Maybe no need to ban altogether, but a heavy tax on both might be useful. For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.

I guess they aren’t very widespread anymore, but should this cover police who ride motorbikes? Or farm/ranch workers (they might ride ATVs)?

I guess we could do something like:

    <normal coverage> - <adjustment for risky behavior> + <adjustment for pro-social outcomes>

But I think we will have trouble puzzling out the last term!

One has to draw the line somewhere. What you are doing is called a slippery slope fallacy.

I’m not sure it is a slippery slope. With a slippery slope we expand the scenario through a sequence of “if X, when what’s to stop Y,” right?

Motorcycle cops are an obvious subset of people who ride motorcycles. It isn’t an extension at all to include them in your logic.

ATVs might be more of an extension. But, I bet if we wanted to we could find all sorts of jobs that are more dangerous than motorcycle riding.

(Edit: just to be specific, you say we have to draw the line somewhere. Well, then where?)

There's a long list of topics where this particular reasoning could draw a line somewhere. It is unfeasible and pointless to cover them all unless they are all banned or all allowed (this essentially is the current state +- AFAIK).

I'd say it is worth looking at redrawing that based on the maximum effect achieved. Drugs would be at the top of this list, followed by motor vehicle use and unhealthy foods. There is probably not enough justification to go beyond the 3.

I’m not clear on what the effect actually is. If it is cost reduction, not sure where motorcycles should be on the list (they are probably more costly for life insurance agencies than for health insurance ones…).

I guess I’ve been beating around the bush, but my point is that targeting drugs specifically for this sort of thing would seem kind of, I dunno, puritanical to me (as someone who doesn’t partake). I’d rather just insure everybody and hope they don’t hurt themselves, just out of their own self interest.

Puritanical is just a label here that you slap on the idea you don't like. In the US drug overdoses are the top cause of death under 35. I have no idea how to properly estimate severe harm that does not result in death but if you take say war as the first approximation, you can 4x the deaths to get non-fatal severe cases.

> For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.

From personal experience, this is de-facto true regardless of what anyone thinks the law says.

I think motorcyclists should pay more for health insurance insurance considering they will use it way more often no matter how well a driver they are, the risks are simply always present.

If they die more often in accidents, and their organs are harvested from that, they should pay less though, right?

I was going to say that but apparently motorcyclists only make up a small percent of organ donation

Four entered the garden: Ben Azzi, Ben Zoma, Acher and Akiva. One looked and died. One looked and was harmed. One cut down all the trees. And one entered in peace and departed in peace.

Lemme guess, Ben Zoma was the peaceful one?

Nope! Rabbi Akiva, who, as the story goes, was an illiterate shepherd until he started studying in his 40s, and went on to become one of the most renowned scholars of his era. This is why some Jewish tradition teaches that for mystical study, one should wait until the age of 40

I didn't know this story, but thanks for pointing this out. It's scary how people in this thread talk about hallucinogens like they could not ruin your life.

Citing Sam Harris:

“Ingesting a powerful dose of a psychedelic drug is like strapping oneself to a rocket without a guidance system. One might wind up somewhere worth going, and, depending on the compound and one’s “set and setting,” certain trajectories are more likely than others. But however methodically one prepares for the voyage, one can still be hurled into states of mind so painful and confusing as to be indistinguishable from psychosis.”

“This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, some people cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug.”

> Keeping them somewhat less accessible

I agree this is important, which is why psychedelics should be legalized so there is at least some sort of control instead of the current approach where 14 year olds can easier get their hands on it.

I'm of very two minds on this topic. On one hand, it's widely accepted that most (not to say all) drugs leave a permanent mark on brains that are not yet fully developed, so teenagers who are often most curious about these things. Gated access is highly desirable in this context, especially as you can't take self regulation for granted. On the other hand, many of these substances show great promise in many clinical trials for a wide variety of issues, and decades of hostile legislation has kept all of that on the back foot. Openly sharing information about these topics can help people make more informed choices whereas those who came before them often had to go it blind.

Yeah - I feel like we need a little bit more of a stripped down approach to drugs in the US. If you’re 18 or under, there need to be a lot of restrictions because we know for a fact that a lot of these things have a profound negative impact on brain development, and we also know that we don’t even fully understand the extent to which various mind altering substances can impact development. It’s just safer to say “no” until then as much as I am loath to endorse anything remotely akin to prohibition culture.

Teens will always get their hands on things so it’s up to parents to teach kids how to be safe around drugs and alcohol, but I know I personally will be really trying to communicate to my kids that they need to wait until they’re 18 to really start exploring all this stuff. I know they will before that, but as long as it’s a little experimentation here and there and not regular use I’ll consider it a success.

Once you’re past 18 or so, it needs to be all about education and general availability for most substances. Safe usage and community protections (such as not driving while intoxicated) should be the #1 goal.

> I know they will before that

I'm curious in what demographic/location context you're in to say that. As a teen I wasn't aware of anyone in my social circles experimenting with drugs and would estimate usage to be <10% and from very particular kinds of people.

Teenagers (in the US) before they go to college pretty typically at least try weed and alcohol at some point. Whether or not they tell their parents is a different story entirely

I was on a student exchange in the US at age ~15 and was offered both weed and alcohol. Funnily enough, weed seemed to be easier to get since dealers don't care about your age. For alcohol you needed to find someone older than 21 who'd buy it for you.

Yeah I definitely knew more stoners in high school than kids who regularly drank. I think drinking is harder to hide tbh. Once you learn how to deal with weed smell you can usually be more discreet.

In general, interpolating statistics based on your personal world view is often misguided. Almost fifty percent of all Americans have tried drugs at least once in their lives [0], you simply won't know about it because most won't speak about it openly. Statistically you're unknowingly acquaintances with a number of people who fall into that category. To quote [1]:

> By the time they’re in 12th grade, 46.6% of teens have tried illicit drugs.

[0] https://www.addictionhelp.com/addiction/statistics/

[1] https://drugabusestatistics.org/teen-drug-use/

I'd done multiple hard drugs well before I had sex for the first time, in the USA.

I guess that speaks a bit to the culture and availability of both things here in the States.

I'd be interested in seeing specifics on brain development. When are they "fully developed" or what is a sufficient point that they could be considered to be. What other things do we practice that should be gated around brain development?

I disagree. Every time I've seen someone get a "bad trip", they're people who read a lot and worked themselves into a state of anxiety over the fact that something could go wrong. If they had just approached it like "ooh lets get high and have fun" rather than "I have to do X, Y, Z or else it's going to be horrible!", they would have probably been OK. Hallucinogens have way too much gatekeeping and mysticalization around them for what they are.

Understanding the risks of buying potentially adulterated or counterfeit products is another thing entirely, which would be helped greatly by increased commodification and legalization.

Whilst that might true as per your observations, I've also seen people do zero research, take a substance in the wrong place/frame of mind, and subsequently had a more turbulent experience than they were expecting

Yes to both.

We often attract certain types of people, and have a wealth of experience with that type.

We probably all take this as obvious knowledge. But only when I uncomfortably enter a group of people unlike me -- and feel totally alienated not just by their norms and assumptions, but their misunderstandings of my own -- only then do I truly confront the implications in a visceral, non-academic sense :)

That's true with anything, though.

I know two people who had prolonged psychotic episodes, as in, for weeks they were in their own world. These were both people who had many fun/enjoyable experiences beforehand.

I myself have had bad / hell like experiences a small percentage of the time, despite literal hundreds of good experiences prior.

Becoming a father many years ago significantly altered my trip experience.

Dosage also plays a strong role..

These things are generally less toxic than alcohol and it is criminal to punish someone for having them or using them.. But they are also extremely powerful, and despite potential amazing experiences, do carry risks.

And they are definitely not for everyone.

Can you explain how it changed after being a father?

I tripped a lot in my early 20s, a whole lot, and never had a bad time. Well, I had some uncomfortable experiences, but not what I can now call a bad trip.

One of my first times after, in my experience, I literally went to hell. I was convinced I was on the outskirts, all the people at the party around me were demons, I was about to be tortured forever, and I was never going to see my son again and he was going to grow up without me..

I convinced myself I was in that position because I had wrecked and killed someone, and my punishment was forever replaying the experiencing of a life where I would grow up to have a son, only to have him ripped away from me, reminded of what I did, and then tortured for some nearly eternal amount of time....

Any conversations people had with me at the time, I heard the words they were saying but completely twisted the meaning of the words to fit whatever crazy narrative was going on in my head.

This has happened 4 or 5 times. Despite being familiar with the experience, in my mind it just reinforces that I am in a "loop" at the time, about to be tortured again..

It's happened with LSD, Mushrooms, and surprisingly even ketamine. *edit it also happened during an intense changa experience with a shaman in Tijuana, which was my most intense experience with anything to date..

You'd think I would not take this stuff anymore =p I have at least slowed down considerably...

Regarding your trip to hell, I'm interested to know if you have a lifelong belief in heaven and hell, or if it came by itself during the trip.

As an atheist with no supernatural beliefs (that I know of), I wonder if a trip on LSD for me would just be boring, or if these supernatural things become real during a trip even if you don't truly believe in them.

I am definitely influenced by Christianity..

Regardless of your beliefs, whatever your experience, I highly doubt you would find it "boring".

I can't even imagine that really, it would take a very boring person.

I've heard a lot of acid stories, but never "I was just kind of bored"

It's unlikely you'd find it boring simply because you're an atheist. The experience is typically quite intense, although it's dose-dependent as well as setting-dependent. I'm agnostic but my own experience was a heightened sense of panpsychism which went away later, because my rational, scientific mind didn't find the idea highly plausible.

You don't need religion or other beliefs - LSD has a strong body high, it feels good even if you don't get strong visual hallucinations. I gather that there are strong conditioning effects that determine what people see when they do hallucinate though - you won't encounter anything you had no concept of in the first place.

I've had remarkably similar bad trips, unfortunately I didn't make it out as unscathed.

I tell people: I had both the best day of my life, and the worst day of my life on psychedelics.

Interestingly, In 2006 I had both the best and worst night of my life (up to that point, this was pre-fatherhood) while on acid... but the acid wasn't really the primary factor in either direction..

Some of the best raves of the late 90s and early 2000s were at The State Palace Theater in New Orleans.. At the last party thrown there, I was invited to play first on the main stage, biggest soundsystem and crowd I ever played for, all my friends there to support.. Set goes great, we all hug and celebrate and and start tripping, and have a great time..

At about 4AM I go to get something in my record bag that I left on the stage by the decks.. someone stole it. It also had my car keys in it, among other things..

My buddy had to drive me 3+ hours away to get my spare keys, and hours back, and hours back home again, it was two days after the party before I finally settled in at home, without most of my keys and my stuff.

I had a friend who recorded and took pictures during my set, but in a different incident at the party, he dropped the camera in a literal hole in the floor of this dilapidating building, never to be seen again.

Despite being the worst feeling of my life, and being on acid, it wasn't a "bad trip" because it wasn't the trip's fault...

I would be interested to hear about your experiences. username at gmail if you'd rather not share here.

> I would be interested to hear about your experiences.

Sure, I've written a bit about one of the more damaging trips I've had before on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993060

I have had an incredibly similar experience, including falling back into being convinced I was in a 'loop' when my mind was tired or on psychedelics. I've always found it interesting how common this type of bad trip is and wondered if there's a reason why it's so common. Cultural context can have a large impact on the type of trips you have, but I would not have guessed that western culture would create this type of bad trip, in particular.

Also worth noting that persistent negative effects do not require a bad trip. You can have a wonderful time and still have long lasting issues.

I have a family member who jumped off a balcony on LSD and needed extensive reconstructive facial surgery. I'd call that a pretty bad trip. It's kind of kept me away from anything more than mushrooms.

It also makes doing your homework a lot harder. If I want to buy alcohol, I can go to a shop and can get something that’s correctly labeled with an alcohol percentage and is highly unlikely to contain methanol.

If I go buy some psychedelic, chances are it is diluted or laced, so I would have to know how to test that what they sell me is what I asked for.

There are jurisdictions where it's legal, and shops that will ship it virtually anywhere. The product is pure, tested, and consistent.

Of course you have to find such a shop (hint: try Canada), and it's still a lot of hassle for something that should be perfectly legal, and is, in many places.

The thing that bothers me the most are the companies out here trying to get psychedelics to a state where they own the tech and can try to make as much money as possible off of it. Not so much the part where it becomes more available with consistent quality for more users.

I was getting ads for MindMed's clinical trials of their LSD analogue a few months back and was considering signing up for it, as I'm totally down with more scientific research on these compounds. However, the idea that a corporation with a patent on an analogue that is lobbying to make it so their version is the one that is approved is kinda the worst. We already have LSD, it's cheap and it's amazing, yet here we are marching down the road of some patented version being the one that's approved for use. I get that these companies want to fund research, but this isn't the way.

Welcome to the USA. Psychedelics are just the tip of an iceberg here. There's shit like highly effective cough medicines or antidepressants available in other countries which show promise in saving lives but nope mired in patent stuff and corrupt regulation...

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/european-cough-medicine-...

The high horse of HN generally suggests that every person on the planet does empirical research on every step of their journey through life. I've personally seen several, otherwise normal people, one-shot their brain into purgatory with hallucinogens.

Incidental gatekeeping by leaving it on the black market isn't the way to keep it safe, quite the opposite - that poses a lot of dangerous risks.

Bringing it into the light under thoughtful consideration and openly discussing and encouraging harm prevention is the only way to make this safe. Everyone should have the right to to exploring this if they want to, and there should be plenty of open discussion, research, and education. I really appreciate the open-source approach here, the spirit of this movement feels like the right thing for humanity.

I feel similar about this productisation but for slightly different reasons. Psychedelics can provide a sacred experience, at least they have for me, and I treat each psychedelic experience I have as a sacred ritual. It’s a sacrament. So forcing them into the materialist, capitalist system we currently have just feels so wrong. It’d be like a company coming out with pre-blessed Eucharist cookies. But worse because what you are shown so often reveals how insidious capitalism is, and how there is so much more than the material realm. I know this is just my personal view and experience. Anyway, I don’t feel so bad about LightWand as the whole point was the open source, sharing nature.

I’m fine with ‘less accessible’ - I am not fine with ‘criminal.’

> Keeping them somewhat less accessible tends to filter out people who don't do their homework

I strongly disagree. Your circles might be different, but in my experience, wanting to do your homework makes it less accessible, because it tends to put you at odds with the people who are otherwise eager to grant you access. They want people with a certain mindset and an up-front faith in the process. They want people who aren't careful about ingesting psychoactive substances, are eager to put their mental health in the hands of some guy they barely know, and are going to blame their own baggage or spiritual shortcomings if it doesn't go well.

These drugs, and many others, are already pretty accessible if you are willing to take that heedless approach.

In contrast, the approach described in the article is expressly tailored for people who want to be careful and do their homework. It's for people who have access to the drug and implicitly already have access to cruder ways of using it, but who want to put in extra effort for a more controlled experience.

Basically this. Many times I've gotten too casual with them and then been reminded that they are not a party drug. Persistent HPPD(ok, redundant) and long lasting anxiety and/or motor issues(tics).. inability to focus. It's great that there are people who can gobble psychs like candy and not have issues(that they're aware of anyway) but they need to chill on trying to get everyone to trip out. I get it. I felt that "everyone should try this" vibe. But seriously, no. Don't take people's psychology lightly.

I'm skeptic about psychedelic. Is there enough unbiased research about these stuffs? I myself is interested in it too but so far it is in general illegal in Canada, and I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to try it out.

there are plenty of psychedelics legal in Canada, I know of a few chemical suppliers that specialize in this. It's been at least a decade since I last ordered from them, but they are still in bussines.

However you said that your not knowledgeable and I guess that you doesn't have access to a milligrams scale, so your better to stay away and learn the theory first. A lot of psilocybin analog (alpha-MethylTryptamine was one of my favorite and it's still available) from Thikal are still legal in Canada so that book is a good place to start learning.

There is not enough research because, at least in the US, there was a blanket ban on any research since 1970 when most psychedelics were placed on "Schedule I" - meaning they had "no accepted medical use" and "high potential for abuse."

"Big Reality" was either terrified of everyone becoming drooling monkeys, or people seeing behind the curtain of society, depending on who you ask.

The noun "stuff" never gets an s. I'm sure there's some easy rule for words like this.

What if "dissolving the ego" is bad though?

Thousands of years of Buddhist practice says it isn't

Thousands of years of Buddhist practice and the enlightened teachers are still getting in sex scandals. As someone who spent years in that world, I never met anyone who seemed genuinely helped by the practice

Psychedelics are not some harmless cure-all. They can provide remarkable experiences, life affirming experiences and being quite effective against depression. They can also cause some pretty scary and bad times. So they need to be treated with respect. But I think they're well worth exploring.

That's what the ego would say.

Care to explain how this dissolves the ego like I am 5?

thinking that our own judgement is better than a doctor judgement, supported by a vast community and shared knowledge, is epistemically interesting. Beware that I'm not saying that doctors, or the scientific community, can't be wrong, everyone can be wrong, even ourselves.

Personally, I'd rather have a proper doctor prescribe me said medicine than take it myself.

I'd say it's irrelevant. Doctors typically have no exposure, interest nor knowledge about these things. So they are not the ones to have an opinion about it.

We should fix that then. (Timothy Leary was in fact a doctor. Perhaps though his overly zealous enthusiasm for LSD makes him not the ideal example in this case though.)

Not sure tbh. This is still in its infancy and not "stable" enough for a bigger adoption rate. So while we're still researching I feel like it's ok that we don't get it out to the masses.

In an ideal world maybe, but in the real world, most doctors are conditioned by US propaganda and the War on Drugs. Their views are compromised.

Furthermore, I've had mixed experiences with health professionals. It took me 10 years across multiple clinics and states to get diagnosed with gout that I've had since at least my late teens. Laughed out of multiple doctor's offices because I'm a "healthy young male" even though each day and night was filled with excruciating pain and drastically reduced mobility. "Full test panels" that specifically did not test my uric acid, because no healthy young male has gout.

No mention of gout ever to me, of course. I had to self diagnose as the disease progressed due to lack of treatment. Got my diagnosis confirmed by a physician's assistant, because both doctors at that clinic were on vacation at the same time for like the third time that quarter. He ordered a uric acid test, and was surprised that I'd never been offered one.

Both doctors had literally laughed me out of the office over the previous months. But I was persistent and it turns out the physician's assistant there was both more thorough and more knowledgeable than either doctor, helping me finally begin a path to treatment. I was damn near about to kill myself from a decade of extraordinary pain. From my discussions with older, typical gout sufferers, my case is extraordinarily bad and most of them only experience mild pain.

It's equally as silly to place 100% trust in doctors as it is to place 0% trust in them.

When there's millions of doctors, not only are there going to be more mediocre doctors than anything, but there has to be a bottom of the barrel as well.

It took me years to be diagnosed with PTSD, a problem I knew I had. Because I am not a vet, I had to go through every other diagnosis first -- schizo, bipolar, borderline -- each with a new set of pills to take. Some of the shrinks who diagnosed me wouldn't do anything but open my file, make some remarks, and fill out a prescription, with nary any eye contact.

Finally got a very expensive doctor who wasn't under the thumb of insurance companies. Her first question, upon hearing my issues, was "how is your sleep?" "I don't, really" was my reply. Screened me for PTSD and I clocked 76/80 pts. She set me up with the proper therapy, and within a year, I was screening at 30/80 pts. All it took was asking me one question that wasn't loaded towards the doctors favorite diagnosis & prescription.

Isn't every medicine a drug, since a drug with medical application in the right dose is just called medicine?

No.

Guess we have different definitions then. In the usage I got to know, every medicine (besides placebos and household remedies) are drugs. This was supposed to be a nitpick and a rhetorical question. Care to elaborate how your definition differs? Do you think yours is general for english/US?

Given that the current regime is bringing back measles, appeals to authority are becoming fraught.

After seeing someone I love tortured for weeks at a hospital primarily because every one of the doctors was convinced they knew better than her -- I'm very much on the 'we can do just fine on our own' train. Do some research, use good sources, let docs stop you from bleeding out if it comes to that.

> thinking that our own judgement is better than a doctor judgement, supported by a vast community and shared knowledge, is epistemically interesting.

The medical community is concerned with physical health, mental health, ect.

The Psychedelic community is more like a religion; it is "vast" and there is a lot of "shared knowledge" if you go looking. The thing is, western medicine's purpose really isn't to do the kind of thing that psychedelics are for.

It's probably better not to conflate the two communities, because they use drugs for very different purposes.

A different way to say it: Don't confuse the pharmacy and the liquor store.

This is absolutely /bullshit/.

That medical doctor doesn't even know how most of the medications work, or why!

If it was just about "health" a lot of things with our modern medical care would be different.

Isn't this what the years-long studies and rigorous state examination is for? How would they selecting medication, when they wouldn't know the mechanism of action?

Congrats, you just described mental healthcare.

And a bunchhhhh of other things.

You have state examination for other professions? We only have them for medical professions, laywers, criminal-related professions and teachers.

I think in most cases were the patient thinks he is smarter than the doctor, the latter already knows the argument, but also why it is wrong/more complicated. When something is understoodable by laymen, the doctor will be fine to understand it and better suited to judge it.

You misunderstand.

"How would they selecting medication, when they wouldn't know the mechanism of action?"

Mechanism of action is not known in 10-20% of current medications and treatments, across the board.

We /already/ prescribe things without knowing how they work.

I am not a doctor myself, but from what I hear from relatives, who are, for most known diseases, there is a predefined treatment plan. While the doctor can choose something else, he better knows what he is doing, otherwise it will be legally dangerous. Even if there is a well-known better treatment he isn't allowed to do it, because it isn't approved by the council of insurance, and this will also result in legal trouble. If the doctor doesn't work in a hospital that won't only result in legal trouble, but a revoked profession, i.e. the doctor is out of business and bankrupt for life, because the insurance decides where a doctor has a praxis.

If the case arises that the disease it is not known and it is not known by another doctor in a higher hospital, then you do need to select a medication yourself. And then you do need to know both the physiological issue and the mechanism of action. Not just to ensure that the medication is effective, but because there are thousands if not millions of medications and you do need to select. Simply choosing something will almost certainly result in serious harm/death. Also, because it is an unusual disease, the mechanism of action won't be the primary/intended one of the medication. I mean, not that the doctor wouldn't never be wrong. But he will always /think/ he knows how they work, because if he doesn't he would rather do nothing (meaning only treating pain / trying to prevent it becoming worse) than something, for legal reasons.

That's why the studies are famously only about learning by rote, because of the huge knowledge that must be known by heart. Also it is more important to know the physiology, because there will be constantly new medications and you need to understand their mechanism. This is also why in this profession you are required to go to continuing education or otherwise loose your profession.

I think for most mistreatments it's not because the doctor doesn't understand the medication, but because of wrong diagnosis, focusing on the wrong symptom, misunderstanding or simply human error. Every conclusion any man takes, can also be taken by every doctor, but in addition he also has the vast knowledge and training of decades and the century long history of the medical community. That's why I disagree with you and agree to the original claim:

> thinking that our own judgement is better than a doctor judgement, supported by a vast community and shared knowledge, is epistemically interesting.

I agree with you for the most part. But the same medical establishment that pumped opioids everywhere, demonized fat instead of sugar, claimed tobacco was fine, overprescribed mental health drugs, etc is perhaps not a slam-dunk example of why we should trust the "expert consensus" on emerging treatments and techniques.

Compounding the issue is the eye-rolling hypocrisy that in the so-called "Land of the Free", a healthcare system controlled by the gatekeepers of big pharma and for-profit companies gets a blind pass... but putting certain plants (that you can grow yourself) into your own body is considered a serious felony...?

There's at least a sliver of daylight here that mean YMMV (which I'm sure you and I would agree on) - but if you lack the freedom to choose anyways, then it doesn't matter. And the people who decide for you are clearly part of a system that is compromised by regulatory capture, political polarization, and the insatiable greed of American healthcare.

With things the way they are, it's not hard to be more knowledgeable about a condition than your doctor. Doctors have to know about all the possible conditions people can have, I only have to know about the one I have, so I've spent more time researching it than the doctor.

If you don't know what's wrong with you, then a doctor is absolutely the way to go. But if you already have a diagnosis, you can go spend time researching it, the doctor isn't going to do that.

I can't edit anymore so I'll comment. My point is that it's epistemically interesting. What makes it so is that it's hard (at least to me) to decide who's right or wrong. To do so would need an expert-level understanding of the matter at hand. That is not possible: I choose my own biased judgement, someone else potentially biased judgement, or I trust experts and a broader group of people that seems to have things sorted? Trusting others, I make the same choice (epistemically, let me stress again) as choosing my own biased judgement, after all it is my biased judgement that makes me choose that way. At some point, you have faith in something: yourself, the media, some partial knowledge of published papers (am I interpreting their relevance correctly?). My guess (but it is mine alone, going back into the loop) is that a broader group of people someone mitigates failures in having faith into the wrong stuff. This again is not true in general. All this to say, it's interesting to note how on some topics the general public seems to split into two groups, one advocating for the complete trust in the expert, the other for more or less complete self made opinions. Usually health, education, ... ? It seems to me that there isn't such a split for other topics.

People talk about getting out of software and doing woodwork Now this... I've actually done DMT one time was crazy and instant the effects but brief. I did it at a dining room table with wooden grain and concentric ring placemats. I remember seeing my arm like wtf is that. And then the grain/rings moving. Even closing my eyes I'd see colors but was over in a couple minutes.

What I had my friend made. Bought some root, had to use naptha to separate it in a fridge then put it (powder) on top of something flammable and smoke it like weed.

Further thoughts:

On a side note/comparison, weed for me it's like. Day to day you're driven by a known process/system. You have to get to work at 9 AM, go to this, then that. Smoking weed you stop and are in the moment, suddenly focused on how vibrant this red shrub is that you normally ignore. I don't smoke weed anymore because it makes me super paranoid like afraid cops are going to arrest me or I can't interact with people as I already have social anxiety. The other thing is it would enforce my delusions thinking some idea was great/fixate on some design (I was trying to use it to come up with ideas to make money).

DMT is like losing steady state/reality, solid things start to move. The colors were not solid for me, it's like when you push your eyes (while closed) and you see flashes of light. This was a long time ago I did it so might not be remembering as well, it was intense though and brief.

I have not done acid or shrooms as I have bad repressed childhood memories and I don't want to get stuck in that for hours.

Did K one time, I just sat on a couch throughout a party doing nothing/sipping on a cup of water.

K2/Salvia that stuff was whack, I felt like I was sinking into a couch when I smoked it in a shed with a buddy and I felt dumb like I couldn't talk correctly.

C and Addy, amazing. I mean if you could operate life like that all the time you'd probably die just because you'd do crazy things like do a jump that you normally wouldn't just because of the overconfidence. But yeah the ability to sit down/cram 12 hrs of work and pass a test, amazing or nail every note on a guitar. The weight loss is great but I found my p would shrink so much it was crazy. At one point started to defecate blood (was just a fissure) so yeah that was a problem. I would use A for times when I couldn't get sleep and would just do these overnighters at a data-entry job.

Also did M before (fake addy) and yeah, that's great for drinking, you can just pound beers/liquor and not feel it. The bad thing is the come downs, you are drained of happiness, can't do anything and it is hard to recover. A way to recover is to jerk off a lot. But yeah I don't do that anymore just because the sadness is crazy.

Note that 'DMT' isn't a shortened name for '5-MeO-DMT'. While related, 'DMT' and '5-MeO-DMT' are different compounds, with different effects:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-MeO-DMT#Effects

https://qualiacomputing.com/2020/07/01/5-meo-dmt-vs-nn-dmt-t...

I don't partake anymore, only drink nowadays and even that try to only do a day a week since it costs money but also I don't actually enjoy the taste of alcohol. I use it for the social aspect but then I do too much of it and do dumb things like climb buildings or try to fight people, go to strip clubs drop money I don't have. (I spent $1.2K one time it's bad since I go out to try and meet women)

My other drug of choice is adrenaline from driving fast my car currently tops out just under 160mph and I'd go even faster if I could but maybe thankfully I can't. Fear is funny too, I don't fear this but I fear talking to people ha.

I'm trying to stop this because the tickets part, I only screw around on highways when I'm alone and day time, I don't do swimming/cutting people off but yeah.

The speed thing is easy get an old ZR1 it can go 200 but going in a straight line can be boring. It's the acceleration. Recently been watching this guy drive an Elise down roads in Switzerland that's pretty fun and not that fast. I know you can track too but idk.

the first pic looks like Jobs and Bill Watterson

I'm developing a much more advanced digital device (like bicycle to spaceship compared to this). I'm currently blocked by chemistry issues.

Without rigorous science and licensed professionals it would be insanity to take these drugs. They can potentially PERMANENTLY traumatize your brain possibly even _literally_ ruining your entire life. I guess that risk is worth it for some people

Your concern is warranted, but a tad hyperbolic. Getting into a[n even minor] car crash, and thereafter recovery, can have equally devastating effects, as can being attacked by a dog.

[flagged]

Can you please express your substantive points without getting personal? I'm sure you didn't intend to cross into personal attack but this comment is a step in that direction.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I used to be very active in the hippy music scene. Permanent effects are exceedingly rare. I know people who trip fairly frequently and beyond some dreadlocks or tie dyed shirts off the clock, they are perfectly normal well adjusted people. You are being extremely hyperbolic.

I mean, so can alcohol.

Am I the only person who read the article like this: "blah blah BOTH BILL ATKINSON AND STEVE JOBS DIED FROM PANCREATIC CANCER blah blah"?

Steve Jobs tried to treat his cancer by eating apples and ignoring the diagnosis until it was too late… not sure if that’s really connected to psychedelics

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve thought that what this country needs is more druggies running around.

More people like Bill Atkinson? That sounds good to me.

How can you look at this and think "druggies"?

More people like Bill Atkinson and Steve Jobs sounds great to me!

these are the 'good' type of drugs though

Drug culture had a big influence on the creation of modern desktop computing. https://www.amazon.com/What-Dormouse-Said-Counterculture-Per... is the best-researched book I've seen on this, but after living in the bay area for 35 years and talking to lots of people, there is a lot more drug use that impacts technology than most people would expect.

While DMT definitively has its merits (and is produced naturally in the human body), know also that Psilocybin allows for an increases of the human lifespan of over 50%, which is absolutely massive. [0]

It's entirely natural, easy to do, has no side effects, costs next to nothing, and can even be "fun". As usual, the media will not talk about this discovery, as it is too much of a game-changer for our current systems.

[0] https://neurosciencenews.com/psilocybin-longevity-aging-2942...

I assume this comment is trolling. But to be clear to readers, the link states psilocybin 50% increase in lifespan of human skin etc. not human lifespan.

"[...] extended the cellular lifespan of human skin and lung cells by more than 50%"

If we assume that the effect is the same for all types of cells, it follows that the life is extended by 50% (when keeping "all other factors" constant, as usual).

It has to also down-regulate cells divisions, else it could be quite problematic.

That's not a safe assumption.

I feel like someone is trying really hard to push public perception of psychedelics towards "acceptable". I don't know who it benefits, but this is a really weird Overton window.

I wouldn't say a word if it weren't nth article about psychedelics that appears on HN frontpage. I was quiet the last n-1 times.

If you google psilocybin right now, you can see articles that state how it "slows ageing" and "cures depression". There probably is some truth to it, but only in very specific sense and specific circumstances. Most people will NOT benefit from taking the drug (as with any drug).

So it hurts my soul when I see words like "legalize" being thrown in this context. We know very very little about effect of such drugs. And the goal should not be to legalize, but rather to expand our knowledge on how it works, and create safe medicine that actually helps people.

Rant is over now. Thank you.

> So it hurts my soul when I see words like "legalize" being thrown in this context. We know very very little about effect of such drugs.

That seems like exactly when we should legalize it. The default is legal, and without definite knowledge of serious harm, that should be the status.

The burden of proof should be on the people who want it to be legal, and by your comment, their case seems pretty weak.

Sure, just let people use any weapon, we don't know for sure, if any particular bullet is mortal, maybe they don't cause any harm that time.

It’s a lot easier to study if it’s legal. It’s also pretty hard to come up with a convincing placebo. The experience is also highly colored by “set and setting”, and the clinical environment or office space is probably not ideal for this knowledge expansion..

An article just came out showing that psilocybin extends life in aged mice, so that’s why you’re seeing it a lot. Yet we have no idea what causes this lifespan increase. Is it a result of “hallucination” experience itself , a purely chemical effect, or something in between? (aka will a ‘bad trip’ give the same effect on lifespan?)

> Most people will NOT benefit from taking the drug (as with any drug)

Now you’re just making things up.

That's something I'm really worried about, especially when SV is pushing it. And it is difficult to prove that research is unbiased.

One of the commenters of your post says "If we legalize it we can better research it". Allow me to be rude -- this is BS. If we follow this logic we should legalize pretty much everything!

I think it is polite to be rude to such dangerous thoughts. Downvote me as you see fit.

But following your logic everything would be illegal! There's a whole lot we don't know about how aspirin works, for instance.

Governments should not be in the business of banning things unless there's a clear and present danger. Citizens should have the autonomy to do risky things if they want to.

Aspirin mechanisms is known since the late 1970s, it's a COX inhibitor.

Acetaminophen is the one that still mysterious, there are credible theories but they don't explain everything the substance does. The latest one I know of is that one : https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2413811122

I think a blanket ban under schedule 1 stating that it has no acceptable use is dangerous. It's a clearly false designation and doesn't have evidence to back it up. This isn't a simple matter of a dangerous substance. This is a hard-core human rights violation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com